What, then, should the House of Bishops have done? I think the statement they issued says some helpful and positive things, and I particularly appreciate the focus on the primacy of identity in Christ that is effected by the baptism of believers.
The emphasis is placed not on the past or future of the candidate alone but on their faith in Jesus Christ. The Affirmation [of Baptism] therefore gives priority to the original and authentic baptism of the individual, and the sacramental change it has effected, allowing someone who has undergone a serious and lasting change to re-dedicate their life and identity to Christ. The image of God, in which we are all made, transcends gender, race, and any other characteristic, and our shared identity as followers of Jesus is the unity which makes all one in Christ (Galatians 3.27-28)
But it leaves both a theological and a practical question unanswered. The theological question concerns the meaning of ‘welcome and unconditional affirmation’ within the body of Christ. Jesus is often claimed to be ‘inclusive’ in the gospels, but there is plenty in his action and his teaching which suggests that his all-embracing call to repentance and faith does not align with contemporary understandings of ‘inclusivity’, containing an irreducible element of challenge and change, not simply in terms of lifestyle and action, but at fundamental levels of self-understanding. Paul’s writings continue this theme; the grace of God is ‘unconditioned’ in the sense of being offered to all, but it is not ‘unconditional’ in the sense that it demands a radical reorientation of our understanding of self and the world. That is true of all of us, and if Beardsley and others want the assumptions of transgenderism to be exceptions to this, then the case needs to be made.
The practical question is what it means to adapt existing liturgy to respond in a ‘creative and sensitive way’. Like the unhelpful phrase ‘radical Christian inclusion within the Christian tradition’, it seems to me that this offers the invitation for clergy to do what they wish, and further undermines the role of bishops as teachers and guides.
The overall effect of this double move—to vote for the motion as it was first presented, then to reject the request for new liturgy—has probably diminished the standing of the bishops on all sides. Those wanting radical change see this as double dealing, whilst those wanting reassurance about the bishops’ commitment to historic understandings of sexuality and marriage see too many loopholes. I think the wise thing to have done would have been to take seriously the words of both Richard Frith and John Sentamu, and insisted on a two-part motion, similar to the one that Nick Land proposed. This would have offered greater clarity and coherence, and would have protected against accusations of hypocrisy.